jplomley Posted April 10, 2014 Share #1 Posted April 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...especially those that use a hybrid workflow such as scanning on an Imacon/drum scanner and produce inkjet prints. Curious to here other's opions as I contemplate the switch. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Hi jplomley, Take a look here Any MM uers that switched from B&W film and regretted it?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
geoffreyg Posted April 10, 2014 Share #2 Posted April 10, 2014 Have worked with MF and Imacon 343, and also with MM. Its a tricky subject, as there is something to film that digital just doesn't quite have. Not sure if its a softness in the transitions, the role of grain, the shape of the curve, but there is something there. That said, the ease of digital (esp. with the quality of high end digital) has made looking back little more than a twinge. However, a good friend who has both has gone back to shooting a lot of film with his MF gear. For the MM, it knocks the pants off 35mm film, and the richness of detail and shadows makes this no contest. Along with high ISO, you can do things with this camera that just weren't possible with film, and yet still have that special look that is more "film" than digital. There is probably some areas where the gentler transitions of film still are preferred but for urban/landscapes, the MM is very very sweet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted April 10, 2014 Share #3 Posted April 10, 2014 Have worked with MF and Imacon 343, and also with MM. Its a tricky subject, as there is something to film that digital just doesn't quite have. Not sure if its a softness in the transitions, the role of grain, the shape of the curve, but there is something there. For the MM, it knocks the pants off 35mm film, and the richness of detail and shadows makes this no contest. Along with high ISO, you can do things with this camera that just weren't possible with film, and yet still have that special look that is more "film" than digital. There is probably some areas where the gentler transitions of film still are preferred but for urban/landscapes, the MM is very very sweet. .... say that the film has a "soul" that the digital does not Geofrrey, only the high Iso I admit and the miracle happens because sometimes you can take pictures at night as daylight ... but with "smooth" edges Best Henry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charby57 Posted April 10, 2014 Share #4 Posted April 10, 2014 I have used medium format for 28 years. Have printed a lot in B&W on fiber-based paper. Purchased a MM a year ago. Have printed on an Epson 3800 a lot since. Never looked back. The MM is a major step in the holy grail of B&W photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dant Posted April 10, 2014 Share #5 Posted April 10, 2014 Flatbed scanned 35mm negs are about 3 - 4 mp. The MM 18mp produces nice grain at about iso 2000-2500. I am very happy with it. Wheeling WV: Photo I just got back from a trip using the MM and M240. I shot about 2500 images. I could never hope to get the reuslts I did with film. I am an old time film shooter, 45 years, but alas it is just not practical for me now. I do wish they would make a FF 6mp back for my SWC that is affordable. I still like shooting with it. But for the reasons I mentioned film is pretty dead for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jplomley Posted April 10, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted April 10, 2014 Many thanks to all for the considered response. @charby57, I'm only 60 km from Montreal! Nice to see another local on this thread. Are you using the K3-inks on your Epson 3880? Curious what media type you are using to approximate your darkroom fiber-based paper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charby57 Posted April 10, 2014 Share #7 Posted April 10, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jeffry, indeed, I do use the standard K3 inks for my 3800. I print either on Epson Exhibition, Hahnemûle Photo Rag Baryta or Ilford Gold Silk. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 10, 2014 Share #8 Posted April 10, 2014 I print either on Epson Exhibition, Hahnemûle Photo Rag Baryta or Ilford Gold Silk. Might want to also try Canson Infinity Baryta Photographique. Similar to Ilford GFS, but has a slightly whiter base and nicer surface texture IMO, more like old fibre papers. It's also easier to feed through the top feed of the 3800 than Hahnemuhle PRB, which I find works better using the front feed. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charby57 Posted April 10, 2014 Share #9 Posted April 10, 2014 Thank you Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted April 10, 2014 Share #10 Posted April 10, 2014 +1 on Canson Baryta. Like Agfa 111. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted April 10, 2014 Share #11 Posted April 10, 2014 Hmm 3800. I'd like to try that with my MM files. I have a 9600 Pro, which is good for going large, but I would like to try a 3800 for detail... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 11, 2014 Share #12 Posted April 11, 2014 Hmm 3800. I'd like to try that with my MM files. I have a 9600 Pro, which is good for going large, but I would like to try a 3800 for detail... The printer size isn't what dictates the 'detail', depending how one defines that. These are both older generation Epsons. The more current comparison would be the 3880 vs the 9900. The latter has 2 more colors (orange, green) but the same number of black inks and the same 3.5 picoliter nozzle size and resolution. The 9600 is an older machine with fewer colors and black inks as well as 4pl nozzles. The 3880 adds vivid magenta to the 3800, among other improvements. One can also switch various Epson machines to third party all-black ink sets, e.g., the Piezography system by Cone. This would be a fine match with the MM, but introduces various complexities of operation and workflow. And of course would, for all practical purposes, require a dedicated b/w machine. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Likaleica Posted April 11, 2014 Share #13 Posted April 11, 2014 I do wish they would make a FF 6mp back for my SWC that is affordable. I still like shooting with it. But for the reasons I mentioned film is pretty dead for me. Would 16mp suffice? It's not FF but close Hasselblad Imacon Ixpress V 96C 16MP 36 9x36 9mm Digital Back Kit V96C | eBay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_S Posted April 11, 2014 Share #14 Posted April 11, 2014 No regrets about getting the MM at all, but I have kept my M6 film body and Nikon 5000ED scanner. I like them both a lot. Dislikes are: on the Monochrom it's the notchy shutter release and on the M6 the fact that I have to turn the shutter speed dial to B to turn of the light meter. Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
2wk Posted April 11, 2014 Share #15 Posted April 11, 2014 The printer size isn't what dictates the 'detail', depending how one defines that. These are both older generation Epsons. The more current comparison would be the 3880 vs the 9900. The latter has 2 more colors (orange, green) but the same number of black inks and the same 3.5 picoliter nozzle size and resolution. The 9600 is an older machine with fewer colors and black inks as well as 4pl nozzles. The 3880 adds vivid magenta to the 3800, among other improvements. One can also switch various Epson machines to third party all-black ink sets, e.g., the Piezography system by Cone. This would be a fine match with the MM, but introduces various complexities of operation and workflow. And of course would, for all practical purposes, require a dedicated b/w machine. Jeff I wasn't thinking the size of the printer was dictating detail, I assumed the 3880 was a newer generation. Thanks for the piezography info! I had no idea and now I am very interested in this system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreyg Posted April 11, 2014 Share #16 Posted April 11, 2014 Piezography is rather amazing. Had a chance to do Cone's 4 day workshop on this some years back, and while exhausting, very informative. The prints they make in VT are just awesome. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted April 11, 2014 Share #17 Posted April 11, 2014 The MM is wonderful, but it doesn't stop me using film and my Imacon. I would really miss the satisfaction of doing the chemistry at home if I stopped using film. The enlarger is dusty however and I don't plan to change that! Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted April 11, 2014 Share #18 Posted April 11, 2014 I assumed the 3880 was a newer generation. It is…for now…the 3800 is not. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mctuomey Posted April 11, 2014 Share #19 Posted April 11, 2014 No regrets about getting the MM at all, but I have kept my M6 film body and Nikon 5000ED scanner. I like them both a lot. Dislikes are: on the Monochrom it's the notchy shutter release and on the M6 the fact that I have to turn the shutter speed dial to B to turn of the light meter. Nick Pretty much same here. Shooting an M6ttl with several B&W films, for the physical enjoyment and "imperfect" look of film, which I still like. Don't scan anymore - have it done outside when needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted April 11, 2014 Share #20 Posted April 11, 2014 Maybe one regret... How should I put this... I love the smell of Rodinal in the morning, it smells like... I am making something special! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.